OAuth Working Group B. Campbell
Internet-Draft Ping Identity
Intended status: Standards Track C. Mortimore
Expires: March 18,May 11, 2013 Salesforce
September 14,November 7, 2012
SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion Profiles for OAuth 2.0
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-14draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-15
Abstract
This specification defines the use of a SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion as
a means for requesting an OAuth 2.0 access token as well as for use
as a means of client authentication.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 18,May 11, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions . . . . . 4
2.1. Using SAML Assertions as Authorization Grants . . . . . . 4
2.2. Using SAML Assertions for Client Authentication . . . . . 5
3. Assertion Format and Processing Requirements . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Authorization Grant Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Client Authentication Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Authorization Grant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of
urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer . . . . . . 10
6.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of
urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:saml2-bearer . 1110
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1211
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix B. Document History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Introduction
The Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os] is an XML-based framework that allows
identity and security information to be shared across security
domains. The SAML specification, while primarily targeted at
providing cross domain Web browser single sign-on, was also designed
to be modular and extensible to facilitate use in other contexts.
The Assertion, an XML security token, is a fundamental construct of
SAML that is often adopted for use in other protocols and
specifications. An Assertion is generally issued by an identity
provider and consumed by a service provider who relies on its content
to identify the Assertion's subject for security related purposes.
The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2][RFC6749] provides a method for
making authenticated HTTP requests to a resource using an access
token. Access tokens are issued to third-party clients by an
authorization server (AS) with the (sometimes implicit) approval of
the resource owner. In OAuth, an authorization grant is an abstract
term used to describe intermediate credentials that represent the
resource owner authorization. An authorization grant is used by the
client to obtain an access token. Several authorization grant types
are defined to support a wide range of client types and user
experiences. OAuth also allows for the definition of new extension
grant types to support additional clients or to provide a bridge
between OAuth and other trust frameworks. Finally, OAuth allows the
definition of additional authentication mechanisms to be used by
clients when interacting with the authorization server.
The OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] is an
abstract extension to OAuth 2.0 that provides a general framework for
the use of Assertions as client credentials and/or authorization
grants with OAuth 2.0. This specification profiles the OAuth 2.0
Assertion Profile [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] to define an extension
grant type that uses a SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion to request an OAuth
2.0 access token as well as for use as client credentials. The
format and processing rules for the SAML Assertion defined in this
specification are intentionally similar, though not identical, to
those in the Web Browser SSO Profile defined in SAML Profiles
[OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]. This specification is reusing, to the
extent reasonable, concepts and patterns from that well-established
Profile.
This document defines how a SAML Assertion can be used to request an
access token when a client wishes to utilize an existing trust
relationship, expressed through the semantics of (and digital
signature calculated over) the SAML Assertion, without a direct user
approval step at the authorization server. It also defines how a
SAML Assertion can be used as a client authentication mechanism. The
use of an Assertion for client authentication is orthogonal to and
separable from using an Assertion as an authorization grant. They
can be used either in combination or separately. Client assertion
authentication is nothing more than an alternative way for a client
to authenticate to the token endpoint and must be used in conjunction
with some grant type to form a complete and meaningful protocol
request. Assertion authorization grants may be used with or without
client authentication or identification. Whether or not client
authentication is needed in conjunction with an assertion
authorization grant, as well as the supported types of client
authentication, are policy decisions at the discretion of the
authorization server.
The process by which the client obtains the SAML Assertion, prior to
exchanging it with the authorization server or using it for client
authentication, is out of scope.
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Unless otherwise noted, all the protocol parameter names and values
are case sensitive.
1.2. Terminology
All terms are as defined in The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2],[RFC6749], OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions],
and Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) 2.0
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os].
2. HTTP Parameter Bindings for Transporting Assertions
The OAuth 2.0 Assertion Profile [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions] defines
generic HTTP parameters for transporting Assertions during
interactions with a token endpoint. This section defines the values
of those parameters for use with SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertions.
2.1. Using SAML Assertions as Authorization Grants
To use a SAML Bearer Assertion as an authorization grant, use the
following parameter values and encodings.
The value of the "grant_type" parameter MUST be
"urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer".
The value of the "assertion" parameter MUST contain a single SAML 2.0
Assertion. The SAML Assertion XML data MUST be encoded using
base64url, where the encoding adheres to the definition in Section 5
of RFC4648 [RFC4648] and where the padding bits are set to zero. To
avoid the need for subsequent encoding steps (by "application/
x-www-form-urlencoded" [W3C.REC-html401-19991224], for example), the
base64url encoded data SHOULD NOT be line wrapped and pad characters
("=") SHOULD NOT be included.
The following non-normative example demonstrates an Access Token
Request with an assertion as an authorization grant (with extra line
breaks for display purposes only):
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Asaml2-bearer&
assertion=PHNhbWxwOl...[omitted for brevity]...ZT4
2.2. Using SAML Assertions for Client Authentication
To use a SAML Bearer Assertion for client authentication grant,authentication, use the
following parameter values and encodings.
The value of the "client_assertion_type" parameter MUST be
"urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:saml2-bearer".
The value of the "client_assertion" parameter MUST contain a single
SAML 2.0 Assertion. The SAML Assertion XML data MUST be encoded
using base64url, where the encoding adheres to the definition in
Section 5 of RFC4648 [RFC4648] and where the padding bits are set to
zero. To avoid the need for subsequent encoding steps (by
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" [W3C.REC-html401-19991224], for
example), the base64url encoded data SHOULD NOT be line wrapped and
pad characters ("=") SHOULD NOT be included.
The following non-normative example demonstrates a client
authenticating using an assertion during the presentation of an
authorization code grant in an Access Token Request (with extra line
breaks for display purposes only):
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: as.example.com
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=authorization_code&
code=vAZEIHjQTHuGgaSvyW9hO0RpusLzkvTOww3trZBxZpo&
client_assertion_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth
%3Aclient-assertion-type%3Asaml2-bearer&
client_assertion=PHNhbW...[omitted for brevity]...ZT
3. Assertion Format and Processing Requirements
In order to issue an access token response as described in The OAuth
2.0 Authorization Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2][RFC6749] or to rely on an Assertion for
client authentication, the authorization server MUST validate the
Assertion according to the criteria below. Application of additional
restrictions and policy are at the discretion of the authorization
server.
o The Assertion's <Issuer> element MUST contain a unique identifier
for the entity that issued the Assertion.
o The Assertion MUST contain <Conditions> element with an
<AudienceRestriction> element with an <Audience> element
containing a URI reference that identifies the authorization
server, or the service provider SAML entity of its controlling
domain, as an intended audience. The token endpoint URL of the
authorization server MAY be used as an acceptable value for an
<Audience> element. The authorization server MUST verify that it
is an intended audience for the Assertion.
o The Assertion MUST contain a <Subject> element. The subject MAY
identify the resource owner for whom the access token is being
requested. For client authentication, the Subject MUST be the
"client_id" of the OAuth client. When using an Assertion as an
authorization grant, the Subject SHOULD identify an authorized
accessor for whom the access token is being requested (typically
the resource owner, or an authorized delegate). Additional
information identifying the subject/principal of the transaction
MAY be included in an <AttributeStatement>.
o The Assertion MUST have an expiry that limits the time window
during which it can be used. The expiry can be expressed either
as the NotOnOrAfter attribute of the <Conditions> element or as
the NotOnOrAfter attribute of a suitable <SubjectConfirmationData>
element.
o The <Subject> element MUST contain at least one
<SubjectConfirmation> element that allows the authorization server
to confirm it as a Bearer Assertion. Such a <SubjectConfirmation>
element MUST have a Method attribute with a value of
"urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer". The
<SubjectConfirmation> element MUST contain a
<SubjectConfirmationData> element, unless the Assertion has a
suitable NotOnOrAfter attribute on the <Conditions> element, in
which case the <SubjectConfirmationData> element MAY be omitted.
When present, the <SubjectConfirmationData> element MUST have a
Recipient attribute with a value indicating the token endpoint URL
of the authorization server (or an acceptable alias). The
authorization server MUST verify that the value of the Recipient
attribute matches the token endpoint URL (or an acceptable alias)
to which the Assertion was delivered. The
<SubjectConfirmationData> element MUST have a NotOnOrAfter
attribute that limits the window during which the Assertion can be
confirmed. The <SubjectConfirmationData> element MAY also contain
an Address attribute limiting the client address from which the
Assertion can be delivered. Verification of the Address is at the
discretion of the authorization server.
o The authorization server MUST verify that the NotOnOrAfter instant
has not passed, subject to allowable clock skew between systems.
An invalid NotOnOrAfter instant on the <Conditions> element
invalidates the entire Assertion. An invalid NotOnOrAfter instant
on a <SubjectConfirmationData> element only invalidates the
individual <SubjectConfirmation>. The authorization server MAY
reject Assertions with a NotOnOrAfter instant that is unreasonably
far in the future. The authorization server MAY ensure that
Bearer Assertions are not replayed, by maintaining the set of used
ID values for the length of time for which the Assertion would be
considered valid based on the applicable NotOnOrAfter instant.
o If the Assertion issuer authenticated the subject, the Assertion
SHOULD contain a single <AuthnStatement> representing that
authentication event.
o If the Assertion was issued with the intention that the presenter
act autonomously on behalf of the subject, an <AuthnStatement>
SHOULD NOT be included. The presenter SHOULD be identified in the
<NameID> or similar element, the <SubjectConfirmation> element, or
by other available means like [OASIS.saml-deleg-cs].
o Other statements, in particular <AttributeStatement> elements, MAY
be included in the Assertion.
o The Assertion MUST be digitally signed by the issuer and the
authorization server MUST verify the signature.
o Encrypted elements MAY appear in place of their plain text
counterparts as defined in [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os].
o The authorization server MUST verify that the Assertion is valid
in all other respects per [OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os], such as (but
not limited to) evaluating all content within the Conditions
element including the NotOnOrAfter and NotBefore attributes,
rejecting unknown condition types, etc.
3.1. Authorization Grant Processing
If present, the authorization server MUST also validate the client
credentials.
If the Assertion is not valid, or its subject confirmation
requirements cannot be met, the authorization server MUST construct
an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2].[RFC6749]. The value of
the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_grant" error code. The
authorization server MAY include additional information regarding the
reasons the Assertion was considered invalid using the
"error_description" or "error_uri" parameters.
For example:
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Content-Type: application/json
Cache-Control: no-store
{
"error":"invalid_grant",
"error_description":"Audience validation failed"
}
3.2. Client Authentication Processing
If the client Assertion is not valid, or its subject confirmation
requirements cannot be met, the authorization server MUST construct
an error response as defined in OAuth 2.0 [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2].[RFC6749]. The value of
the "error" parameter MUST be the "invalid_client" error code. The
authorization server MAY include additional information regarding the
reasons the Assertion was considered invalid using the
"error_description" or "error_uri" parameters.
4. Authorization Grant Example
Though non-normative, the following examples illustrate what a
conforming Assertion and access token request would look like.
Below is an example SAML 2.0 Assertion (whitespace formatting is for
display purposes only):
<Assertion IssueInstant="2010-10-01T20:07:34.619Z"
ID="ef1xsbZxPV2oqjd7HTLRLIBlBb7"
Version="2.0"
xmlns="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion">
<Issuer>https://saml-idp.example.com</Issuer>
<ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
[...omitted for brevity...]
</ds:Signature>
<Subject>
<NameID
Format="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:1.1:nameid-format:emailAddress">
brian@example.com
</NameID>
<SubjectConfirmation
Method="urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:cm:bearer">
<SubjectConfirmationData
NotOnOrAfter="2010-10-01T20:12:34.619Z"
Recipient="https://authz.example.net/token.oauth2"/>
</SubjectConfirmation>
</Subject>
<Conditions>
<AudienceRestriction>
<Audience>https://saml-sp.example.net</Audience>
</AudienceRestriction>
</Conditions>
<AuthnStatement AuthnInstant="2010-10-01T20:07:34.371Z">
<AuthnContext>
<AuthnContextClassRef>
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:ac:classes:X509
</AuthnContextClassRef>
</AuthnContext>
</AuthnStatement>
</Assertion>
Figure 1: Example SAML 2.0 Assertion
To present the Assertion shown in the previous example as part of an
access token request, for example, the client might make the
following HTTPS request (with extra line breaks for display purposes
only):
POST /token.oauth2 HTTP/1.1
Host: authz.example.net
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
grant_type=urn%3Aietf%3Aparams%3Aoauth%3Agrant-type%3Asaml2-
bearer&assertion=PEFzc2VydGlvbiBJc3N1ZUluc3RhbnQ9IjIwMTEtMDU
[...omitted for brevity...]aG5TdGF0ZW1lbnQ-PC9Bc3NlcnRpb24-
Figure 2: Example Request
5. Security Considerations
No additional security considerations apply beyond those described
within The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol [I-D.ietf-oauth-v2],[RFC6749], the OAuth 2.0
Assertion Profile [I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions], and in the Security
and Privacy Considerations for the OASIS Security Assertion Markup
Language (SAML) V2.0 [OASIS.saml-sec-consider-2.0-os].
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. Sub-Namespace Registration of
urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer
This is a request to IANA to please register the value
"grant-type:saml2-bearer" in the registry urn:ietf:params:oauth
established in An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for OAuth
[I-D.ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns].[RFC6755].
o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer
o Common Name: SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion Grant Type Profile for
OAuth 2.0
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification Document: [[this document]]
6.2. Sub-Namespace Registration of
urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:saml2-bearer
This is a request to IANA to please register the value
"client-assertion-type:saml2-bearer" in the registry
urn:ietf:params:oauth established in An IETF URN Sub-Namespace for
OAuth [I-D.ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns].[RFC6755].
o URN: urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:saml2-bearer
o Common Name: SAML 2.0 Bearer Assertion Profile for OAuth 2.0
Client Authentication
o Change controller: IETF
o Specification Document: [[this document]]
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-oauth-assertions]
Campbell, B., Mortimore, C., Jones, M., and Y. Goland,
"Assertion Framework for OAuth 2.0",
draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-05draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-06 (work in progress),
September 2012.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns]
Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace
for OAuth", draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns-06 (work in
progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-oauth-v2]
Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-31 (work in progress), August 2012.
[OASIS.saml-core-2.0-os]
Cantor, S., Kemp, J., Philpott, R., and E. Maler,
"Assertions and Protocol for the OASIS Security Assertion
Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-core-
2.0-os, March 2005.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4648] Josefsson, S., "The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data
Encodings", RFC 4648, October 2006.
[RFC6749] Hardt, D., "The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Framework",
RFC 6749, October 2012.
[RFC6755] Campbell, B. and H. Tschofenig, "An IETF URN Sub-Namespace
for OAuth", RFC 6755, October 2012.
7.2. Informative References
[OASIS.saml-deleg-cs]
Cantor, S., Ed., "SAML V2.0 Condition for Delegation
Restriction", Nov 2009.
[OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os]
Hughes, J., Cantor, S., Hodges, J., Hirsch, F., Mishra,
P., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, "Profiles for the OASIS
Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS
Standard OASIS.saml-profiles-2.0-os, March 2005.
[OASIS.saml-sec-consider-2.0-os]
Hirsch, F., Philpott, R., and E. Maler, "Security and
Privacy Considerations for the OASIS Security Markup
Language (SAML) V2.0", OASIS Standard saml-sec-consider-
2.0-os, March 2005.
[W3C.REC-html401-19991224]
Hors, A., Raggett, D., and I. Jacobs, "HTML 4.01
Specification", World Wide Web Consortium
Recommendation REC-html401-19991224, December 1999,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224>.
Appendix A. Acknowledgements
The following people contributed wording and concepts to this
document: Paul Madsen, Patrick Harding, Peter Motykowski, Eran
Hammer, Peter Saint-Andre, Ian Barnett, Eric Fazendin, Torsten
Lodderstedt, Susan Harper, Scott Tomilson, Scott Cantor, Michael B.
Jones, Hannes Tschofenig, David Waite, Phil Hunt, and Mukesh
Bhatnagar.
Appendix B. Document History
[[ to be removed by RFC editor before publication as an RFC ]]
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-15
o Reference RFC 6749 and RFC 6755.
o Update draft-ietf-oauth-assertions reference to -06.
o Remove extraneous word per
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg10055.html
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-14
o Add more text to intro explaining that an assertion grant type can
be used with or without client authentication/identification and
that client assertion authentication is nothing more than an
alternative way for a client to authenticate to the token endpoint
o Add examples to Sections 2.1 and 2.2
o Update references
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-13
o Update references: oauth-assertions-04, oauth-urn-sub-ns-05, oauth
-28
o Changed "Description" to "Specification Document" in both
registration requests in IANA Considerations per changes to the
template in ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns(-03)
o Added "(or an acceptable alias)" so that it's in both sentences
about Recipient and the token endpoint URL so there's no ambiguity
o Update area and workgroup (now Security and OAuth was Internet and
nothing)
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-12
o updated reference to draft-ietf-oauth-v2 from -25 to -26 and
draft-ietf-oauth-assertions from -02 to -03
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-11
o Removed text about limited lifetime access tokens and the SHOULD
NOT on issuing refresh tokens. The text was moved to
draft-ietf-oauth-assertions-02 and somewhat modified per
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08298.html.
o Fixed typo/missing word per
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg08733.html.
o Added Terminology section.
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-10
o fix a spelling mistake
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-09
o Attempt to address an ambiguity around validation requirements
when the Conditions element contain a NotOnOrAfter and
SubjectConfirmation/SubjectConfirmationData does too. Basically
it needs to have at least one bearer SubjectConfirmation element
but that element can omit SubjectConfirmationData, if Conditions
has an expiry on it. Otherwise, a valid SubjectConfirmation must
have a SubjectConfirmationData with Recipient and NotOnOrAfter.
And any SubjectConfirmationData that has those elements needs to
have them checked.
o clarified that AudienceRestriction is under Conditions (even
though it's implied by schema)
o fix a typo
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-08
o fix some typos
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-07
o update reference from draft-campbell-oauth-urn-sub-ns to
draft-ietf-oauth-urn-sub-ns
o Updated to reference draft-ietf-oauth-v2-20
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-06
o Fix three typos NamseID->NameID and (2x) Namspace->Namespace
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-05
o Allow for subject confirmation data to be optional when Conditions
contain audience and NotOnOrAfter
o Rework most of the spec to profile draft-ietf-oauth-assertions for
both authn and authz including (but not limited to):
* remove requirement for issuer to be
urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:nameid-format:entity
* change wording on Subject requirements
o using a MAY, explicitly say that the Audience can be token
endpoint URL of the authorization server
o Change title to be more generic (allowing for client authn too)
o added client authentication to the abstract
o register and use urn:ietf:params:oauth:grant-type:saml2-bearer for
grant type rather than http://oauth.net/grant_type/saml/2.0/bearer
o register urn:ietf:params:oauth:client-assertion-type:saml2-bearer
o remove scope parameter as it is defined in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-assertions
o remove assertion param registration because it [should] be in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-oauth-assertions
o fix typo(s) and update/add references
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-04
o Changed the grant_type URI from
"http://oauth.net/grant_type/assertion/saml/2.0/bearer" to
"http://oauth.net/grant_type/saml/2.0/bearer" - dropping the word
assertion from the path. Recent versions of draft-ietf-oauth-v2
no longer refer to extension grants using the word assertion so
this URI is more reflective of that. It also more closely aligns
with the grant type URI in draft-jones-oauth-jwt-bearer-00 which
is "http://oauth.net/grant_type/jwt/1.0/bearer".
o Added "case sensitive" to scope definition to align with
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-15/16.
o Updated to reference draft-ietf-oauth-v2-16
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-03
o Cleanup of some editorial issues.
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-02
o Added scope parameter with text copied from draft-ietf-oauth-v2-12
(the reorg of draft-ietf-oauth-v2-12 made it so scope wasn't
really inherited by this spec anymore)
o Change definition of the assertion parameter to be more generally
applicable per the suggestion near the end of
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg05253.html
o Editorial changes based on feedback
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-01
o Update spec name when referencing draft-ietf-oauth-v2 (The OAuth
2.0 Protocol Framework -> The OAuth 2.0 Authorization Protocol)
o Update wording in Introduction to talk about extension grant types
rather than the assertion grant type which is a term no longer
used in OAuth 2.0
o Updated to reference draft-ietf-oauth-v2-12 and denote as work in
progress
o Update Parameter Registration Request to use similar terms as
draft-ietf-oauth-v2-12 and remove Related information part
o Add some text giving discretion to AS on rejecting assertions with
unreasonably long validity window.
draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer-00
o Added Parameter Registration Request for "assertion" to IANA
Considerations.
o Changed document name to draft-ietf-oauth-saml2-bearer in
anticipation of becoming an OAUTH WG item.
o Attempt to move the entire definition of the 'assertion' parameter
into this draft (it will no longer be defined in OAuth 2 Protocol
Framework).
draft-campbell-oauth-saml-01
o Updated to reference draft-ietf-oauth-v2-11 and reflect changes
from -10 to -11.
o Updated examples.
o Relaxed processing rules to allow for more than one
SubjectConfirmation element.
o Removed the 'MUST NOT contain a NotBefore attribute' on
SubjectConfirmationData.
o Relaxed wording that ties the subject of the Assertion to the
resource owner.
o Added some wording about identifying the client when the subject
hasn't directly authenticated including an informative reference
to SAML V2.0 Condition for Delegation Restriction.
o Added a few examples to the language about verifying that the
Assertion is valid in all other respects.
o Added some wording to the introduction about the similarities to
Web SSO in the format and processing rules
o Changed the grant_type (was assertion_type) URI from
http://oauth.net/assertion_type/saml/2.0/bearer to
http://oauth.net/grant_type/assertion/saml/2.0/bearer
o Changed title to include "Grant Type" in it.
o Editorial updates based on feedback from the WG and others
(including capitalization of Assertion when referring to SAML).
draft-campbell-oauth-saml-00
o Initial I-D
Authors' Addresses
Brian Campbell
Ping Identity Corp.
Email: brian.d.campbell@gmail.com
Chuck Mortimore
Salesforce.com
Email: cmortimore@salesforce.com